MOVE earnings / call
MOVE Q3 2026 earnings call transcript, November 12, 2026
Corvex Third Quarter 2026 Earnings Conference Call
Key takeaways from this call : results vs expectations, guidance, what analysts asked
- Chance 27%
- Seth Demsey 20%
- Jay 15%
- Management 8%
- Analysts 11%
Management
Chance
Management
8 min
Seth Demsey
Co-Chief Executive Officer
6 min
Jay
Management
4 min
Analysts · 2
- C
Bill Pepinastoso
Chardin
1 min
- V
2 min
Transcribed automatically by Lician from the company's public webcast; it can contain errors and speaker names are best effort.
- Prepared remarks0:01
Three, grow demand for the Corvex Token Factory through partners and channels. With that, let me hand it to Seth to take you inside the technology. Seth?
- Seth DemseyCo-Chief Executive Officer
Thank you, Jay, and good morning, everyone. I want to spend a few minutes on three things. What Corvex Token Factory is and why we built it, what we're doing on security, and what the engineering team delivered this quarter. Let me start with Token Factory. We launched Corvex Token Factory on September 30th. The simplest way to describe it is it's a way to buy intelligence by the token instead of by the GPU. A developer or an enterprise sends a request to the standard API. We serve it with an openweight hosted model on our infrastructure, and they pay for the tokens that they use. No cluster to provision, no hardware to manage, and by default... We retain nothing, not the prompt, not the response. We built it because of a shift in how we see AI being consumed in production. Frontier closed-weight models are remarkable, but they're expensive. Not every use case needs a Frontier model. For a large and rapidly growing share of real production work, open-weight models now deliver results that are capable of powering real-world workflows and actions. In fact, we run our own engineering this way. A small share of requests go to Frontier models for planning and the hardest problems, and the large majority of routine requests run on open-weight models powered through Corvex Token Factory. Every workload that makes that shift needs somewhere to run. This is the demand we're building for. And for Corvex specifically, it changes the economics of our infrastructure. Capacity sold by the token can earn more per GPU hour than the same GPU under a bare metal contract when there is demand.
Pricing follows from the model. We run open weight models on our own infrastructure and price at a material discount to Frontier Labs while still pricing at a significant margin above the cost of serving rather than charging. Premium for excessive access to a closed model. And switching is deliberately easy. TokenFactory is compatible with both the OpenAI and Anthropic API conventions, so a developer changes an endpoint, a key. And a model name, and their existing code and tools. CloudCode, Codex, AIDR, keep working. It's still early. We're weeks past launch, and the first customers are telling us why it works for them. One, the chief executive of an engineering firm. told us speeds and availability made TokenFactory reliable enough to become an execution layer in their workflows and that knowing their code is not used for training was non-negotiable. Our focus over the next two. Quarters is demand. Onboarding partners and channels first, then direct enterprise sales, and continuing to ship against the roadmap. We are not commenting on TokenFactory revenue yet, and we expect a meaningful contribution to begin in 2027. Turning now to security and our assured AI solution. The dirty secret of AI is, at best, data is encrypted at rest and in transit, and then decrypted before it is processed inside the CPU, the GPU, and stored in memory. Weights, fine-tuning data, and prompts are all exposed in those moments. Every provider asks you to trust their policies and their peoples. We're building assured AI so that customers do not have to.
Trusted execution environments to prove, cryptographically, that no one, including Corvex, has access to a protected model or the data it processed. In March, we were among the first companies to complete a verified production deployment of confidential computing on... ...NVIDIA HGX B200 systems with CPU and GPU attestation through Intel Trust Authority, NVIDIA NRAS, and encrypted NVLink traffic between GPUs. We have been running protected workloads for certain customers... ...for more than a year. We are integrated and assured AI into TokenFactory so that lower cost inference and verifiable privacy come together in a single platform. Today's standard TokenFactory endpoints... ...run with zero data retention. And the confidential computing layer is what makes the operator access not just out of policy but impossible. The customers who care most, regulated enterprises, financial firms, and public sector... ...organizations are also the customers with the strongest and most durable relationships once you are in. We expect to have proof points to share over the coming quarters. Turning now to the three items the engineering team delivered this quarter. First, on Blackwell, we completed delivery of a multi-year cluster announced on August 4th, including the liquid-cooled HGX B200 capacity. That cluster has been fully in production since July 29th. Second, on Midwest One, our real estate team under Garrett Brahms is converting an existing enterprise data center into a liquid-cooled AI-ready facility, on track to be ready for service in the fourth quarter of 2026.
Third, on... Our platform software, the next version of our cloud management software, which we said in August had moved from planning into execution, remains in execution and on track, with the first end-to-end stack now being deployed in our lab. It will serve as the basis of all of our deployments moving forward and the base on which we continue to develop our assured AI security offerings for both cloud and inference customers. Finally, in the third quarter, we received notices of allowance for two patents covering So, now we have to talk about the fact that mines are pushed into E où est le premier de vie et il est possible de faire de ces deux prions pour les milliers de vingt-à-visier ? en Corvix's technology, bringing our portfolio to two allowed patents and ten pending applications. With that, I turn it over to Chance. Chance?
- ChanceManagement
Thank you, Seth.
As I said at the top, the useful comparison this quarter is sequential. So I will compare the third quarter to the second quarter throughout. Total revenue for the third quarter was $5 million, compared with $3.8 million. In the second quarter, all of it came from AI platform and services. For the nine months, total revenue was $9.3 million. The sequential increase reflects a full quarter of the capacity that came online during the second quarter. And partial quarter contribution from the final tranche of the Blackwell cluster which came online in late July. That timing is also why third quarter revenue is below one quarter of the $22 million contracted annualized revenue figure we gave you in August. A portion of that capacity. was live for only a part of the period. Revenue was in line with what we indicated in August. Contracted annualized recurring revenue or contracted ARR on live compute was $21.6 million. as of September 30 and is $21.7 million as of today. The definition is unchanged. The annualized value of fixed contractual fees on capacity that has been delivered, accepted by the customer, and is generating revenue as of the stated date. It excludes contracted capacity that is not yet live. It is a point-in-time operating metric, not a forecast, and not a gap measure, and it will not equal annualized gap revenue in any quarter where capacity comes online mid-period. Going forward, we will give you both the quarter-end figure and the as-of-today figure.
Turning now to expenses. Cost of revenue for AI platform and services, excluding depreciation and amortization, was $2.5 million. Compared with $2.1 million in the second quarter. Depreciation and amortization was $2.9 million compared with $2.7 million in the prior quarter. Technology and infrastructure expense was $1.3 million compared with $1.4 million. Sales and market. Marketing was $0.8 million compared with $0.7 million. And general and administrative was $14.8 million compared with $12.1 million. As I explained last quarter, G&A is dominated by non-cash stock-based compensation. from the replacement equity awards issued at the merger. Total stock-based compensation in the quarter was $11.3 million, of which $9.3 sat in G&A. The remaining expense from those awards approximately $143.6 million as of the merger is recognized through 2030, so you should continue to expect a large, non-cash, and reasonably predictable charge each quarter. The awards themselves are detailed in note 12. of the 10-Q, and I would point you to the share count rather than the INCIP statement to understand their economic effect. Loss from operations was $17.4 million. Interest expense was $0.3 million, which is new this quarter. and reflects the equipment financing I will describe in a moment, including amortization of financing costs. Net loss for the third quarter was $17.5 million compared with $12.8 million in the second quarter. Net loss attributable to common stockholders.
was $17.5 million. Adjusted EBITDA was negative $3.2 million for the quarter, flat with the second quarter. The definition is unchanged and the reconciliation is in the press release and will be in the 10Q. Now turning to the balance sheet and cash flow. We ended the quarter with $42 million of cash in cash equivalent, compared with $21.7 million at June 30, plus $0.7 million of restricted cash. The increase reflects the... approximately $31 million of net proceeds from our private placement we closed in early September, and $6.9 million of net proceeds from equipment financing, offset by $9.8 million of capital expenditures and $7 million of operating cash use. Property and equipment net was $39.1 million, compared with $31.4 million. We ended the quarter with $6.9 million of debt, compared with none at June 30. This is the equipment financing for the project. The Blackwell expansion we announced on August 4th, held at the project level, secured by the equipment and the related customer contract, and is non-recourse to Corvex, Inc. Finance lease liabilities were $8.5 million, and operating lease liabilities were $4.5 million. Deferred revenue was $3.2 million, $1.9 million current, and $1.3 million non-current, compared with $3.7 million at June 30. The decrease reflects recognition of previously received customer prepayments. As the capacity under those agreements generates revenue. Cash used in operating activities was $7 million in the quarter, compared with $5.3 million in the second quarter. This includes approximately $1.8 million.
of payments to wind down our legacy connected devices business. Approximately $2.5 million in rent prepayments. And $1.2 million of prepaid software. This was offset by a $2.8 million vendor. Fund collected in July. Capital expenditures were $9.8 million including capitalized software of $0.2 million. Turning now to our capital plan. I said in August that scaling this business will require additional capital. And that our funding requirements depend on the pace and structure of expansion. The principle is one we described in August. Each project is underwritten to clear its cost of capital before we sign. And we fund it as far as possible with customer prep. Payments and asset level debt before we consider equity. Turning now to our capital structure. As of November 10th, 2026, we had approximately 39.1 million shares of common. Stock outstanding in approximately 21,800 shares of series D preferred stock outstanding convertible into approximately 21.8 million common shares. Approximately 60.9 million shares on an as converted basis. That compares with approximately 56.6 million as converted at July 8th. And the change reflects the September private placement of approximately 4.3 million as converted shares at $7.75 per share. On the at-the-market facility we announced on October 14th, we have not used it to date. We put it in place to give us fast, opportunistic access to equity in measured amounts, primarily to fund the equity portion of specific deployments with attractive returns.
rather than general operating needs. We will be disciplined about when and how much we use it. On internal controls, the material weakness disclosed in our 2025 Form 10 remains unremediated as of this quarter's filing. In August, I told you our plan. Engage an advisory firm, complete risk assessment and scoping during the third quarter, then move to control design and documentation, then testing. We completed the risk assessment. Scoping in the third quarter. We are now designing and documenting controls across entity level, business process and IT general controls, starting with order to cash and building those controls into our new procure to pay and ERP systems. As they go live, we expect to begin testing operating effectiveness in the first half of 2027 remediation will not be complete until the controls have operated for a sufficient period and have been tested. We will keep updating you each quarter until this is closed. With that, I will hand it back to Jay.
- JayManagement
Thanks, Jens.
Let me close the way I closed in August, because the point has not changed while the evidence has. The bottleneck in AI infrastructure is not demanding and it's not chips. It's the ability to put a finished, energized data center in the same place and time as hardware, software, and a creditworthy customer, and to deliver this union reliably and on the customer's time frame. In August, that was the description of the job. Today, it's a description of the quarter. 6.1 megawatts of critical IT capacity scheduled to come into service, advanced discussions with partners to take that capacity, a product launched on schedule, and funding structured around prepayments and asset-level debt before equity. What is still in front of us has not changed either. Our capacity needs to grow by multiples. Our revenue is still concentrated in a small number of customers. Token Factory has launched, and we're focused on... ...scaling this product. Our controls work is underway, but not finished. None of that is hidden, and none of it is news to us. We remain excited, though, to tackle these challenges and increase shareholder value by doing so. With that, Operator, we're ready to take...
- Q&A15:02
- Operator
questions. We will now begin the question and answer session. If you'd like to ask a question, please press star one to raise your hand. To withdraw your question, press... Star one again. We ask that you pick up your handset when asking a question to allow for optimum sound quality. If you're muted locally, please remember to unmute your device. Please stand by while we compile the Q&A roster.
Your first question comes from the line of Bill Pepinastoso with Chardin. Your line is open. Please go ahead.
Question · Chardin
CBill PepinastosoAnalyst · ChardinGood morning.
Thank you for taking my questions. For the first one, I was just hoping you could share color on the financing environment and whether you've recognized any notable changes from the prior quarter. Furthermore, I'm not sure. I didn't catch it. Are you able to share what the cost of capital was for the USDAI loan? And do you anticipate tapping USDAI going forward for future equipment? Thank you. Sure, Bill. It's Chance.
- Management
Thanks for the question.
- Management
On the first question about funding environment in general, I would say we remain in active discussions with our financing partners and are really encouraged about the continued trends that we share. I would say the interest from their side remains as robust as we saw earlier in the summer. We're all looking at the interest rate environment and adapting as broader trends roll through the industry. But competence in the space, interest in the space. The asset class and competence in Corvex, frankly, remains as strong as it's been in a long time. As it relates to the USD loan that we announced in August, yeah, I can announce it was a 10. percent interest rate on that facility. And the USD team, they've been great partners. And yeah, we hope to continue to do business with them as we go forward.
Question · Chardin
CBill PepinastosoAnalyst · ChardinGreat. And just so. As a follow up there, the economics of some of the offtakes that you're signing for GPU capacity, are you seeing any improvement in terms of prepayment or. The appetite to increase prepayments.
- JayManagement
Sure, Bill. This is Jay. In terms of prepayments, yes, we see. Customers competing more aggressively for capacity, in part as data center capacity becomes more scarce. And that is an area where, you know, certain aspects of the financing market are showing up. It's raising the tenant credit quality that's required to get into sites. But Corvex has. As far as successfully been able to navigate around that and secure power in certain cases where others haven't been able to. So with respect to customer prepayments, yes, we're seeing the percentages push up relative to where we've seen them. in the past. And then with respect to pricing, semi-analysis continues to be a relatively good guide for industry benchmarks as capacity becomes more scarce and demand density builds for clusters as they come on. That enables us to position the cluster to effectively achieve or exceed our hurdle rates as we bring these forward. So we remain encouraged about our ability to bring, you know, finance. Transactions that exceed our hurdle rate to market. Thanks. And then just the last one for me, Jay, you just mentioned that data center capacity is harder to come by.
You can share a little bit more on a boots on the ground perspective. Are you seeing more competition emerge as a result of regulatory headwinds impacting?
Players that are going after large-scale capacity and need to essentially wind it down to sub-scale or smaller-scale data center deployments. Curious to hear. Yeah. It's always been a competitive market, but some of the recent events, especially with regard to taxes, have certainly led to increases in demand showing up in other places throughout the country for U.S. focused offtake. You know, through the lens of Corvex, you know, we've been ahead of these trends in terms of where we've chosen to grow and have secured rights to expand, for example, at our Midwest. One site, you know, we are encouraged about our ability to navigate some of these because there's really sort of two trends that are occurring. While there is an increase in demand pressure, at the same time, you know, especially within the. past few weeks, landlords are looking for improvements and enhancements in tenant credit quality in terms of the offtake that we bring. As a company, we've always been very focused on tenant credit quality and offtake through the partnerships that we form and the customer. customers that we choose to bring. And so that is proving to be an asset for us as we navigate this environment, both in terms of financing for clusters and then the financing that enables for landlords that choose to partner for. So through that lens, you know, we're not discouraged by the environment and in certain ways it's becoming a competitive advantage for us. But yes, to answer your question, you know, we are seeing increased levels of demand. It just needs to be filtered through the lens of tenant credit quality.
compete and win that incremental power. Great.
Question · Chardin
CBill PepinastosoAnalyst · ChardinThank you for the thank you for answering my questions. Yeah, appreciate it, Bill.
- Operator
Your next question.
comes from the line of Kingsley Crane with Canaccord Genuity. Your line is open. Please go ahead.
Great.
Thanks for taking my questions.
Really encouraged to hear about the release of Token Factory. Just curious your thoughts on how you expect that that offering could evolve over the next year and just, you know, maybe what percentage of total consumption could be occupied by something like Token Factory versus. A GP route or a take-or-pay arrangement. If you look, you know, maybe a year or two out. Thanks. Yep.
Thanks for the question, Kingsley.
In terms of Token Factory and how we see it evolving over the next 12 months, especially in terms of. Yeah, the percentage of capacity we might fill with it. For the clusters and larger footprints that we're bringing online, those are generally destined for long-term committed take-or-pay relationships with third-party customers. The way we're planning to. Scale Token Factory, we've reserved a portion of our H200s and existing GPU fleet for that, that we're using to seed the effort. And then we've secured capacity on a third-party asset-like basis. That enables us to grow cost-effectively and also better match the duration of the compute liabilities that we would bring on with the duration of the demand that we see through Token Factory. So we're effectively trying to grow. Matching assets and liabilities in a controlled fashion. And thus far, we've been able to match capacity with demand as we grow that platform. Over time, the expectation as we think about, you know, a year or two out would be as we have stable-based workloads. contracted, guaranteed throughput, and other forms of forward-looking visibility, that would give us the confidence to begin to bring some of that capacity in-house. And then there may be selective opportunities to use compute as we do these larger deployments to seed a portion of that compute toward the token factory. Though for the larger scale GPU clusters, that would be a minority percentage of the cluster that gets allocated to the token factory.
Okay, that's helpful. And that sort of flows into the second question of just curious your thoughts on trends in spot pricing or committed pricing for different tiers of GPUs, whether that's H100 or Blackwell or Vera Rubin, and then just how you feel your business model benefit from increases in spot. Maybe that's more related to Token Factory if you're planning on signing more.
Yeah. Yeah, great question. We see what you see in terms of increases in spot prices, but we've also seen increases in committed financing. You know, to date, just to ensure that we lock in the certainty of the offtake with the liabilities that come along with deploying these clusters at scale, you know, we've elected to allocate that capacity toward longer-term offtake in order to de-risk the outtake. that comes for investors while still hitting very attractive rates of returns that exceed our hurdle rate. You know, in terms of spot, we've experimented with it in the past, and while it generated attractive yields, the market fluctuated over time. with the portion of capacity that we allocated to spot. In other cases, you know, a customer who may have been using the spot capacity for training moves off, and then we have to replace that customer. So it led to a lot of energy being dedicated toward maintaining a high utilization rate. on the spot capacity in order to, when we think about effectively the effective, you know, revenue per token, the effective revenue per GPU hour filtered through the lens of utilization. At the time, it was too much effort relative to growing the business in a more scalable fashion through long-term committed offtake. But again, just to circle back to your question, it's something we certainly keep an eye on. You know, we may choose to experiment with in the future. And, you know, we are seeing
upward movement in prices for both committed and spot and where that could flow through to our business as longer-term offtake, even six-month and one-year deals from some of our legacy servers come back up for renewal. There are opportunities. to increase average pricing there. And then for the new deals that we're bringing to market, we're quite pleased with the economics that we're seeing come through.
Really helpful. Appreciate the time. Thank you. Of course. Thanks.
- Operator
Your next question comes from the line of Fedora Shabalin with V Reilly. Your line is open. Please go ahead.
Question · V Reilly
VFedora ShabalinAnalyst · V ReillyThank you very much, operator.
And good morning, everyone. My first question is on. The unit economics and the potential security premium. Like specifically, how do the unit economics compare between plain bare metal GPU leaves and the full Corvex deployment with storage managed services? And assured AI attached. Maybe if you can frame it as the revenue per GPU hour per megawatt and incremental gross margin as a premium for security. Thank you. Yep. Well, thank you for the question. Yeah, great question. As we think about, yeah, I guess the relative pricing differences between bare metal, managed Kubernetes, and then assured AI and some of the more advanced offerings. There is a premium that comes along with it. So in terms of, you know, our upcoming deployments, part of the challenge, I guess, is when you filter that premium through the power footprint, the rack density of the servers that we're choosing to deploy. So for instance, with our upcoming NVIDIA Black Well cluster, you know, we're quite encouraged in terms of, you know, where that agreement is going to shake out in terms of revenue per watt or per megawatt. As we look to other offerings, even ones that, you know, would take our managed Kubernetes offering. We do get a price premium on a per GPU per hour basis and our assured AI offerings. When you filter that through the power efficiency of the compute, even if we're seeing an increased premium in the GPU,
- Management
hourly rate that we contract for, if the density is different on the machines, that can impact how that flows through and is measured in terms of revenue per watt. So yeah, we do see stratification. And the opportunities to definitely distinguish pricing between bare metal, managed Kubernetes, and more of the software-driven offerings, all the way up to the revenue per watt that we anticipate being able to achieve over time on Token Factory. But we also filter it through. through the lens of the computing efficiency, the power efficiency of the machines that we're operating it on.
Question · V Reilly
VFedora ShabalinAnalyst · V ReillyThank you very much for raising. And my follow-up is on CapEx to build the capacity already figured. Pardon me if I missed it, but of the roughly 6.3 megawatts coming online this quarter, how much of the GPU networking and fit out CapEx is already committed? Versus still uncommitted handing agreements. If you can just size the remaining spend for each site, that would be very helpful. Thank you.
- Management
Yeah, so great question. You know, a lot of in terms of when we make commitments is dictated by the timing of customer offtake. So, you know, there may be certain items that we commit to in advance just due to lead times. For instance, you know, we've publicly talked about, you know, committing to power in advance in order to deliver the facilities on time to meet the needs of customers that we had high confidence would be coming through the funnel. And in other cases, there are similar long lead items that we procure in advance. But the overwhelming majority of capital is ultimately committed and packaged and brought to market, you know, simultaneous with when we memorialize the offtake agreements.
- Management
Thanks for that.
Question · V Reilly
VFedora ShabalinAnalyst · V ReillyThanks for answering my question and continue. Best of luck. Thank you. Thank you.
- Operator
There are no further questions at this time.
This concludes today's call.
Thank you for attending.
- Operator
You may now disconnect.